Posts in this series
  1. SCOTT1
  2. SCOTT2
  3. SCOTT3
  4. SCOTT4
  5. SCOTT5
  6. SCOTT6


teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.” (1 John 2:27).

Now, you use the term “partial account.” Scott, this has been logically refuted numerous times before. As I pointed out, does partial mean incomplete? Does partial mean “to be added to later”? Does partial mean “hence the Bible is not the sole authority”? Go back and read the paragraph beginning with “The falseness of this position is so obvious…” There I point out the problem with saying, “well, since John 20:30 and 21:25 says that Jesus did more things than we have in the Gospel of John, that means that this is a partial and incomplete account, requiring further information later in the form of tradition…” Just because we don’t know what color cloak Judas was wearing when he betrayed Jesus does not mean that our account or knowledge of the event is “incomplete” or lacking in any way; it is simply not “exhaustive.” And, I might point out to you as well, that what has come out of the “Roman tradition” is *not* further information about the Gospel or Christ, but *directly contradictory* teachings to what *is* in the gospel records.

The first and second century Christians, you said, “HAD to rely on something besides the 66 book Bible you have today!” Again, if Jesus could rely upon the Tanakh alone, I am simply more blessed to have all the New Testament–and that, of course, is irrelevant to the question at hand–is the Word of God alone sufficient guide in all spiritual matters, or does one need an ecclesiastical organization (i.e., the Roman heirarchy) to add its authority and teaching to the Word of God?

POINT 5: As I stated, this is basically a restatement of the falsehood enunciated above; that is, that non-exhaustiveness equals incompleteness. The author states that Jesus taught things that we do not know about; but is this true? We freely acknowledge that there are parables or stories of our Lord that we do not have in the Gospel–but does this mean that what we *do* have is incomplete? Surely not! This is the primary error of this writer’s thinking and argumentation–he fails to see that it is not a logically valid argument to say that since we don’t have every single word the Lord uttered during the time of His ministry, that we hence need some secondary source to the Word of God. There simply is no logical or Biblical basis for such a conclusion.

This writer says that the “Bible is incomplete.” This is a false statement, Scott. Does he mean that God *intended* to have more in the Bible, but failed to put it there? Does he mean that the Roman church is *completing* the Bible? If so, why don’t they just hurry up and finish the process? As I cited above, “Forever, O Yahweh, your word is settled in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89). What does this mean to you? How do you fit this in with the claim that this Word is “incomplete”?

POINT 6: Here the author asserts that there has existed, down through the centuries, “historical records called Tradition.” Could you show me such an “historical record” Scott? Could you show me, for example, a “historical record” of the Christian Church believing in the infallibility of the Pope, say, in the third century? The second century? The first? Could you do that? As Rod has pointed out to you, none of those who used the term “pope” till, oh, about the fifth century, lived in Rome! Seems all the popes avoided Rome. Of course, we both know that the term “pope” at the time didn’t mean what it means today, but that leaves you in a real dilemma: if you try to say the early church believed in a pope, then you have to admit that all the popes didn’t like Rome; if you say that they didn’t use the term pope in that way, then you have to admit the idea of a “Vicar of Christ on earth” in the papacy is a recent invention, not part of the early church. Either way, can you give to me these “historical records” that indicate that this belief can be traced all the way back to the early church? I’d appreciate such documentation, and, since you really pushed for “documentation” in this discussion, I’m *sure* you can provide this to me.

Well, I’m out of time for this evening–in fact, I started writing this last night, but was interrupted by a woman trying to break into my kitchen window, insisting that there was someone in there choking and calling to her. There wasn’t anyone, but she sure thought there was! The police later informed us that she was high on speed. I’ll continue this review and reply later.